Reply With Quote
yep, rigthwingnuts hate PC when it's claimed by the lefties, but LOVE PC when they use their own PC to on the lefties, minorities.
Rightwingnuts are SO DAINTLY OVER-SENSITIVE if anybody says anything negative about THEIR country.
If he just gave a speech, nobody would care about it. There wouldn't be a 3-page thread on this forum about a speech by Colin Kaepernick, and that speech wouldn't have consumed a couple of days of talk shows on radio and television. By sitting instead of doing something that others could have just comfortably ignored, Kaepernick brought more light to his complaint than he could have in almost any other way. (Of course, nobody who disagrees with him really wants to talk about the basis for his protest, so instead of discussing the issue we're denigrating the speaker for bothering to express his viewpoint.)
You might have been more comfortable with a speech that everyone ignored, but the ironic thing about Kaepernick's protest is that for all of the crap that he's getting (and perhaps justifiably so) for being unpatriotic, his choice and his actions are particularly American.
This isn't about the First Amendment (though clearly the First Amendment protects him from public punishment for exercising his right to this form of expression); it's about the underlying notions of free speech and free thought. Free speech is not speech without consequence, and Kaepernick seems to understand and accept that he'll face consequences for this - up to and possibly including the loss of his job. But he made a point and spoke his conscience when he had a platform to do so, which is quintessentially American.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 08-29-2016 at 12:05 PM.
yep, rigthwingnuts hate PC when it's claimed by the lefties, but LOVE PC when they use their own PC to on the lefties, minorities.
Rightwingnuts are SO DAINTLY OVER-SENSITIVE if anybody says anything negative about THEIR country.
Banning new Muslims from entering without serious vetting is not the same as banning all Muslims. I'm not advocating either but you really should educate yourself before parroting talking points.No, they wouldn't.
A piece of who's never served a day in his life calling to ban all Muslims from the country while not giving a damn about the thousands who are serving this country every day. And his dip supporters cheer this because they're a bunch of cowards who are afraid of their own shadows. As soon as a little adversity comes their way they tuck their tails and abandon what they think makes the country so "great". American exceptionalism at its finest
That's a serious fail on your part and makes it hard to take anything you say seriously.
yea, they've been very PC on this.
From a football perspective, I think Kaepernick was going to lose his job before this. It would have been more impressive 2-3 years ago, before his big contract and endorsement money. He does not have much to lose now that he is no longer a duel-threat qb.
Yup
Now if he's cut, and/or doesn't get another gig, he can blame his stance and racism.
Speaking of ignorance:
The Process for Interviewing, Vetting, and Resettling Syrian Refugees in America Is Incredibly Long and Thorough
Another important distinction to make is between resettlement and asylum. The large numbers of Syrians we have seen arriving in Europe this year have either already been registered as refugees elsewhere or have never been registered and therefore are asylum-seekers. They are hoping to be registered and subsequently interviewed by a European Union member-state government to prove that they have a legitimate fear of persecution and cannot return to their homes.
Resettlement, on the other hand, is reserved for a small number of select individuals who are screened and vetted prior to coming to the United States. They have already established that they cannot return home for fear of persecution, and the information they have provided has been fact-checked for credibility. They have also undergone the rigorous screening process as described above. This process takes on average a year-and-a-half and sometimes as long as seven years. In cases where there are legitimate concerns (say, the name of one family member pops up on a security database), the resettlement case of the entire family can be denied.
Because it takes such a long time, the 10,000 Syrian refugees who would be admitted to the United States via resettlement in FY 2016 are refugees that are already undergoing the vetting process. As of Nov. 16, UNHCR has referred 23,092 Syrian refugees for resettlement to the United States; 7,014 Syrian refugees have been interviewed by DHS officers and are awaiting clearance; and 2,174 refugees have been admitted. Due to the length of time this process takes, most of the Syrian refugees who would come to the United States over the next year through resettlement fled Syria at the beginning of the conflict — before the Islamic State had even gained prominence.
But let’s put all this in context. Less than 1 percent of the global population of refugees will ever even be considered for resettlement and undergo an initial interview by UNHCR. Out of the 59.5 million displaced people in the world today — the largest number to date since World War II — approximately 19.5 million are refugees, which means they meet a high standard of refugee criteria. Since 2011, the United States has accepted approximately 75,000 refugees for resettlement yearly, and the plan is to increase the number to 85,000 next year, with 10,000 originating from Syria. This means that each year, the United States has accepted approximately .36 percent of the world’s refugees through a rigorous resettlement process. Even with the proposed increase of 10,000 Syrians, it will be only .44 percent of the global total — and that’s if the overall population of refugees does not increase. And as for the amount of Syrians that the United States has committed to resettle, it’s still only .2 percent of the Syrian refugees registered in Turkey, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, and North Africa.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/30/...-and-thorough/
It doesn't matter if it's existing Muslims or "new" Muslims jackass. It's still a call to ban an entire religion, period. It still spits in the face of the people of that faith who are defending this country so your fat ass can sit on a message board all day and trivialize it as "talking points".
Wish his reason listed would have gone far beyond Cops who shoot innocents.
How about "Until the political vegatables actually do something about X ____ Y_____Z_____"
He kind of had a "coons lifes matter" undertone. Don't think he's going to get much support.
words matter.
Is this the thing where liberals have tunnel vision on and only or mostly only recognize White-inflicted oppression? The biggest form of oppression against African-Americans at this moment in time is the media telling them & everyone else that the only thing between them & living a successful law-abiding life is (rampant) racism from (conservative) govt. officials down to regular citizens. Now not saying there aren't problems in this respect, because there are. But to place blame squarely on that does a huge disservice to them & the country as a whole. By doing that you de-emphasize or completely eliminate the primary reasons for why people succeed. Simultaneously you provoke the worst in them, the characteristics that make people fail: fear, hostility, anger, hopelessness, co-dependence (on govt.).
Glad you're still making an ass out of yourself.
Speaking of ignorance:
James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice: “We can only query against that which we have collected. And so if someone has not made a ripple in the pond in Syria on a way that would get their iden y or their interests reflected in our databases, we can query our databases until the cows come home but nothing will show up because we have no record of that person…You can only query what you have collected. And with respect to Iraqi refugees, we had far more in our databases because of our country’s work there for a decade. [The case of vetting Syrian refugees] is a different situation.” (10/21/15)
Jeh C. Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: “It is true that we are not going to know a whole lot about the Syrians that come forth in this process… That is definitely a challenge….We know that organizations like ISIL might like to exploit this [Syrian refugee resettlement] program…The good news is that we are better at [vetting] than we were eight years ago. The bad news is that there is no risk-free process.” (10/21/15)
Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Director, National Counterterrorism Center, Office of the Director of National Intelligence: “The intelligence picture we’ve had of this [Syrian] conflict zone isn’t what we’d like it to be…you can only review [refugees’ submitted background data] against what you have.” (10/8/15)
James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice: “There is risk associated with bringing anybody in from the outside, but especially from a conflict zone like [Syria]… My concern there [about bringing Syrian refugees into the United States] is that there are certain gaps I don’t want to talk about publicly in the data available to us.” (10/8/15)
Jeh C. Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: “But [the Syrian refugees are] a population of people that we’re not going to know a whole lot about.” (10/8/15)
Gen. (ret.) James Clapper, Director, Director of National Intelligence: “As [Syrian refugees] descend on Europe, one of the obvious issues that we worry about, and in turn as we bring refugees into this country, is exactly what’s their background? We don’t obviously put it past the likes of ISIL to infiltrate operatives among these refugees…That is a huge concern of ours.” (9/9/15)
Michael Steinbach, Assistant Director for the Federal Bureau of Investigation: “Yes, I’m concerned [about bringing Syrian refugees into the United States]…We’ll have to go take a look at those lists and go through all of those intelligence holdings and be very careful to try and identify connections to foreign terrorist groups…in Iraq, we were there on the ground collecting [intelligence], so we had databases to use…You have to have information to vet, so the concern is in Syria is that we don’t have the systems in places on the ground to collect the information.” (2/12/15)
https://homeland.house.gov/press/nat...fugee-vetting/
^ Legit question TSA...
Are you lowkey Cosmiccowboy? It seems like you're always there to defend the guy. On cue.
Power move. He knew he was gonna get cut so he started some controversy on his way out.
Was the database search the only part of the process I linked?
This guy sucks. He just flat out sucks. Hope they bench him early and cut him at the end of the year.
Power move? Now nobody else will want him. Everybody is just ting on him. I think he is just ing stupid.
people ting on him haven't said one thing about the issues he brought up. just telling him to shut up since he's rich. they're proving his point
Random people on the internet aren't really the people who will hire him though, will they?
This guy already got paid regardless though.
Hiring him to be a back up with all this controversy? I guess. I don't see how he did himself any favors here.
Respect. But murica... outta here.
It would be nice if he could articulate his opinions better than a 10th grader who just listened to Rage Against the Machine for the first time, though.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
